Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review Awning Exemptions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses proposed design‑review exemptions for awnings, seeks clearer objective standards
Summary
Staff proposed drafting changes to design‑review exemptions to clarify when awnings, canopies and marquees may be approved administratively; commissioners requested more objective language, photos of local examples and rules for signage and color.
Get email alerts on the Design Review Awning Exemptions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff presented draft changes to Sonoma’s design‑review exemptions that would add clearer standards for awnings, canopies and marquees and allow administrative approval where specific objective standards are met.
The staff proposal recommended: minimum vertical clearance (awning valances no less than 7 feet above finished grade; awning bottom not less than 8 feet above finished grade for projections), maximum horizontal projection (up to 3 feet from the face), limitations on vertical placement so awnings do not extend above the lowest‑story windowsill, restrictions to avoid covering architectural belt courses or storefront bay‑defining piers, and a default maximum awning height of 16 feet where other specifics don’t apply. Staff also proposed adding “marquee” to the code terms so existing theater‑style canopies are covered.
Commissioners sought clearer, less subjective wording where staff used phrases such as “negatively impact architectural or character‑defining features.” Several commissioners asked staff to enumerate architectural elements the code intends to protect, provide photographic examples of local awnings that conform and those that do not, and clarify how awning signage interacts with the sign ordinance. Commissioners also discussed whether awnings should be limited to storefront opening widths and asked staff to return with recommended objective criteria and examples.
Staff said the amendments are for discussion only and that any formal ordinance language would return to the commission for review. No vote was taken.

